"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:


Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.


NVH?

Noise, Vibration, Harshness; as Andy hasn't replied...

Paul

In message
"Paul Scott" wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:


Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.


NVH?

Noise, Vibration, Harshness; as Andy hasn't replied...


Ta, I assume he's away playing with his telescope, he'll go blind one of
these days.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones is
better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that much
difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a few
tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

Noise, vibration and harshness. Think that particular TLA was coined by
Ford engineers during the development of the original Cortina (weight:
787 kg[1]).

[1] A 2008 Ford Focus weighs about 1350 kg dry

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article
,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that
much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a
few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars
such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although it's much
bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also a fair but
lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss of
performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

Hmmm..

1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.

2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.

Much less of a difference than with the F*rds (much less of a difference
in NVH too, I'd suspect), but in spite of the XK boat-anchor in the old
Jag and the new 'un's alloy structure, the old'un is still lighter.

So: the aluminium cars are heavier and use more power than their steel
predecessors...

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones is
better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that much
difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a few
tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

Noise, vibration and harshness. Think that particular TLA was coined by
Ford engineers during the development of the original Cortina (weight:
787 kg[1]).

[1] A 2008 Ford Focus weighs about 1350 kg dry


IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

(Andrew Robert Breen) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars
such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although it's much
bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also a fair but
lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss of
performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

Hmmm..

1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.

2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.

Much less of a difference than with the F*rds (much less of a difference
in NVH too, I'd suspect), but in spite of the XK boat-anchor in the old
Jag and the new 'un's alloy structure, the old'un is still lighter.

So: the aluminium cars are heavier and use more power than their steel
predecessors...

Small problem there... The X308 steel predecessor to the X350 ally XJ was
about 200kg heavier than the X350.

After the "Series" XJs, which would have steadily put on weight from the
s1 you quote above, the late '80s/early '90s XJ40 was north of 1800kg.

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article
,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make
that much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it
adding on a few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c
and such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by
comparison.

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium
monocoque construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it
has in cars such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although
it's much bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also
a fair but lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss
of performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more
power than their steel predecessors.

Hmmm..

1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.

2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.

Much less of a difference than with the F*rds (much less of a
difference in NVH too, I'd suspect), but in spite of the XK
boat-anchor in the old Jag and the new 'un's alloy structure, the
old'un is still lighter.

So: the aluminium cars are heavier and use more power than their steel
predecessors...

Hardly -- if you're going to use the original 1968 car as the benchmark,
you can't compare it with the current XJR, which is a much faster car.
I'd expect the current 3 litre XJ to be both faster and lighter than the
original 4.2 litre XJ6 from 40 years ago. And that's before you consider
all the standard kit a modern Jag has that the old ones didn't (much
more advance, relatively speaking, than trains).

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
(Andrew Robert Breen) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars

Hmmm..

1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.

2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.


Small problem there... The X308 steel predecessor to the X350 ally XJ was
about 200kg heavier than the X350.

After the "Series" XJs, which would have steadily put on weight from the
s1 you quote above, the late '80s/early '90s XJ40 was north of 1800kg.

Sure - but the XJ40 had most of the crash-resistance measures in place.
The OP's position was that crash protection couldn't add that much
weight..

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.


I'm trying desperately not to :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html